What's new
By:

Unanimous Jury Verdicts Required For Serious Criminal Convictions -- Supreme Court Rules

Trial by jury is a downright medieval institution. It boggles my mind that it still exists, even though I'm well aware that it's not nearly as common as movies and TV shows make it out to be.
 
South Africa leaves everything up to the judge. I guess both systems would have their pros and cons.
 
JimLes said:
Trial by jury is a downright medieval institution. It boggles my mind that it still exists, even though I'm well aware that it's not nearly as common as movies and TV shows make it out to be.
Click to expand...

what option is better?
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Exactly. What? Leave it in the hands of one judge who might very well have certain awful biases, prejudices or motivations? That’s infinitely worse.
Click to expand...

You can appeal, you can have multiple judges, you can not elect judges but appoint them based on competence. There are many solutions better than having 12 morons with no background in law judge a complex case.
 
Always nice to see the Supreme Court not follow party lines.

Just spitballing, but how about this for a system tweak: You have two separate jury panels. The first is a group of "peers" (about 8 people) and the second group is a three person legal panel.
Then you could do something like:
Unanimous guilty legal & peers = guilty
Unanimous guilty legal & only 1 innocent peers = guilty
Unanimous guilty legal & 2-3 innocent peers = retrial
Unanimous guilty legal & 4+ innocent peers = Innocent

1 innocent legal & unanimous guilty peers = retrial
1 innocent legal & 1+ innocent peers = Innocent

2+ innocent legal (no matter what peers say) = Innocent

Given that I just made up this system, I don't know that it would work out better. But I would expect that it would result in fewer innocent people being incarcerated and also fewer decisions being reversed on appeal (because the legal panel would consider a lot of these at the first stage).

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
JimLes said:
You can appeal, you can have multiple judges, you can not elect judges but appoint them based on competence. There are many solutions better than having 12 morons with no background in law judge a complex case.
Click to expand...

Still sounds substantially worse. I agree having 12 morons means the better lawyer wins and not necessarily the truth winning. But I don't see how what you just laid out is better.
 
Beer said:
Still sounds substantially worse. I agree having 12 morons means the better lawyer wins and not necessarily the truth winning. But I don't see how what you just laid out is better.
Click to expand...

You don't see how legal experts making a decision is better than random people making a decision?

Remember, every normal country expect America, judges are appointed in a non-partisan process. They're subject to reviews and censure by their own organizations, and can be removed. Higher courts can also vacate sentences, if they believe a judge was bought off, or has "certain awful biases, prejudices or motivations."

I mean, all of continental Europe has trials by judge(or again, a team of judges) and I would assume you're much more likely to see miscarriages of justice occur in the states than say Norway or Netherlands.
 
JimLes said:
You don't see how legal experts making a decision is better than random people making a decision?

Remember, every normal country expect America, judges are appointed in a non-partisan process. They're subject to reviews and censure by their own organizations, and can be removed. Higher courts can also vacate sentences, if they believe a judge was bought off, or has "certain awful biases, prejudices or motivations."

I mean, all of continental Europe has trials by judge(or again, a team of judges) and I would assume you're much more likely to see miscarriages of justice occur in the states than say Norway or Netherlands.
Click to expand...
The issue is that system results in the rich & "privileged" making decisions that disproportionately impact poor & disadvantaged. Maybe it is still a better system, but I don't see much support for it in the US. At least, I expect Democrats would be worried about minority representation & Republicans wouldn't like the idea of giving government more control.
 
JimLes said:
You can appeal, you can have multiple judges, you can not elect judges but appoint them based on competence. There are many solutions better than having 12 morons with no background in law judge a complex case.
Click to expand...

One can also ask a judge to set aside a jury’s verdict if I’m not mistaken. Or go through appeals after a jury trial.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
One can also ask a judge to set aside a jury’s verdict if I’m not mistaken. Or go through appeals after a jury trial.
Click to expand...

So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?
 
JimLes said:
So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?
Click to expand...

I believe it is so the Average Joes are involved at all. Very few Average Joes become prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, etc.
 
JimLes said:
So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?
Click to expand...

You’re hung up on this idea of people being utterly qualified as if listening to information presented and making an informed decision is rocket science. Listen, there are tons of morons out there. There are also tons of corrupt judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top